> This explains why social divisions about public health measures are so bitter and enduring: They are rooted in divisions about the nature of political legitim

> This explains why social divisions about public health measures are so bitter and enduring: They are rooted in divisions about the nature of political legitimacy itself. The global rebellion against the modern bureaucratic state, and the scientific and professional expertise on which it is built, has degenerated into a zero-sum struggle against any effort whatsoever to impose binding, impersonal rules to defend the public good. What the author misses about the "patrimonialism," (rule of the leader or man) he is criticizing is that it is relatively limited in its scope, which facilitates more individual growth and freedom than what we can infer he is advocating for which is a more presumably "maternalist" and encompassing leviathan that provides group leveling and security. The gendered etymology of the terms is probably not by accident either, where one's preference for the tools of masculine aggression (hierarchy, physicality) over feminine aggression tactics (isolation, shame) are probably psychosexual roots of political orientation you can't just reason someone out of. If he thinks the root of a problem is other people not complying with coercion, he should consider whether it is worth reflecting on whether he is the problem.